[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Title:Discussions from a Christian Perspective
Notice:Prostitutes and tax collectors welcome!
Moderator:CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
Created:Mon Sep 17 1990
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1362
Total number of notes:61362

401.0. "What if Lucifer said to God, "I'm sorry."?" by CHGV04::ORZECH (Alvin Orzechowski @ACI) Mon Feb 03 1992 22:54

     The "heart" of Christianity is original sin, i.e., if The Fall  hadn't
     occurred,  Christ's  sacrifice  would  not  have  been  necessary  and
     Christian Salvation would not exist.  It seems to me, though, that  of
     almost  equal  importance  to the Christian religions is the belief in
     the existence an evil one.  Call it Satan or the Devil, but  tradition
     has it that its original name was Lucifer.

     In ruminating on whether or not it was possible to prove the existence
     of God logically, the odd thought occurred to me; what if Lucifer said
     to God, "I'm sorry."?

     My thinking goes like this;  angels  would  seem  to  have  free-will,
     otherwise  Lucifer's  defiance  would mean nothing.  Angels would also
     seem to have feelings, otherwise Lucifer's punishment  would  also  be
     meaningless.   If  angels  can  feel,  what if Lucifer eventually felt
     remorse?  Can God also forgive fallen angels?  Or  is  there  a  limit
     beyond which an all-loving and all-forgiving God cannot/doesn't go?

     Note, I am *not* asking if Salvation is available to Lucifer  since  I
     presume, by definition, it is not.  Nor am I questioning the existence
     of God, Lucifer, or Salvation, even though the germ of this inquiry is
     found  there.  No, I am merely curious to see the answers to something
     I hadn't thought of before from people who are sincere Christians.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
401.1SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEMon Feb 03 1992 23:0421
    RE: Basenote
    
>     Note, I am *not* asking if Salvation is available to Lucifer  since  I
>     presume, by definition, it is not. 
    
    I've grappled with this before.  And I must disagree.  Salvation is
    "available" to Lucifer, I'm sure Ezekiel 33 includes Satan/Lucifer as
    well.  But the question is "WILL Satan change his ways and repent?"  Or
    even we can ask the question "CAN he change his ways and repent?".  IF
    he does, though, he will be forgiven and receive Salvation.
    
    He was born a liar, and the ruler of darkness.  Can he ever conceive
    Truth and Light?  Satan, secondly, will be enjoying Hell, it's his
    habitat, wherever he goes, it's HELL...so I don't think he'll be
    changing, and we'll always have Heaven.  But the fact is, IF Satan
    would repent he would be saved...
    
    That's how I see it...the eternal interplay of opposite creating life.
    
    Playtoe
    
401.2CSC32::J_CHRISTIEPeace: the Final FrontierMon Feb 03 1992 23:107
    Funny.  A book title came to mind when reading .0.  I've yet to
    read the book with this intriguing title:
    
    	"Judas, Come Home -- All Is Forgiven"
    
    Peace,
    Richard
401.3RE: .1 - What do you mean by Salvation, etc.?CHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACIWed Feb 05 1992 16:49106
     Thanx, Playtoe, for your reply.

     RE: .1

> >     Note, I am *not* asking if Salvation is available to Lucifer  since  I
> >     presume, by definition, it is not. 
>     
>     I've grappled with this before.  And I must disagree.  Salvation is
>     "available" to Lucifer, I'm sure Ezekiel 33 includes Satan/Lucifer as
>     well.  ................................................................

     Please elaborate on the definition of Salvation you're using.

     The one I'm using goes something like, "Salvation, *n*, the means  God
     offers  humankind  to  override  the  effects  of Original Sin."  And,
     "Original  Sin,  *n*,  humankind's  deliberate  disobedience  of   the
     injunction *not* to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and
     Evil."  Granted, these are not "official" definitions, but  rather  my
     understanding of the terms as it seems to me they are used.

     By this definition Lucifer is excluded from Salvation because  Lucifer
     is  an  angel  (not human) and Lucifer did not commit the Original Sin
     since the injunction applied to humans.  I'm presuming the "snake" was
     Lucifer  in disguise and, as far as I know, there was no injunction on
     Lucifer *not* to tempt people.  And, even if there was, it is not  our
     concern  anyway  since one of the lessons of the Original Sin story is
     that people must needs to take responsibility for  their  actions  and
     the  "I did it because so-and-so said it was okay to" defense does not
     override this responsibility.

     Thanx for the reference to Ezekiel.  I'll have to  read  it  before  I
     comment.

>     .....  But the question is "WILL Satan change his ways and repent?"  Or
>     even we can ask the question "CAN he change his ways and repent?".  ..

     You offer two questions  I  respectfully  choose  to  ignore  for  the
     purposes of this discussion.  "Will Lucifer change?" and, "can Lucifer
     change?" belong to the discussion of, "who *is*  this  Lucifer  person
     anyway?"  :^D

     For purposes of this discussion I mean to imply, "if it  was  possible
     for  Lucifer to change..."  A related question might be, "is free-will
     removed from one who rejects God?"  In fact, this could be  the  heart
     of the matter.

>     ..................................................................  IF
>     he does, though, he will be forgiven and receive Salvation.

     I presume you site Ezekiel to back this up.  I'll get back to you when
     I've read the passage.

>     He was born a liar, and the ruler of darkness.  Can he ever conceive
>     Truth and Light?  Satan, secondly, will be enjoying Hell, it's his
>     habitat, wherever he goes, it's HELL...so I don't think he'll be
>     changing, and we'll always have Heaven.  But the fact is, IF Satan
>     would repent he would be saved...
>     
>     That's how I see it...the eternal interplay of opposite creating life.

     Very interesting, Playtoe.  Three items:

     1.  As I understand it, Lucifer was created  an  angel  (in  fact,  an
         archangel),  and  so  wasn't  born  a liar.  Becoming the ruler of
         darkness, I believe, falls under the question,  "how  was  Lucifer
         punished?"

     2.  Yes, wherever Lucifer goes, there is Hell, especially if we  agree
         that,  "Hell, *n*, the result of being granted the Beatific Vision
         and then being denied it." is an acceptable  definition.   If  you
         disagree,  please,  let's  not go off on that tangent.  Let's just
         agree that whatever the nature of Hell is, it's horrible.  And so,
         by  definition,  a  horrible place cannot be enjoyable.  If it was
         enjoyable, what kind of punishment is it?

         (This reminds me, by the way, of one of the most beautiful  things
         I've  ever  read.   At  the end of _The Diary of Adam_, Mark Twain
         says that the epithet Adam wrote on Eve's grave was, "Wherever she
         was, there was Eden".  Gives me a twinge just writing this for you
         now.)

     3.  You present an untenable position concerning the nature  of  God's
         creations  when  you  suggest that existence of God (all goodness)
         presumes the existence of Another (all evil).   According  to  the
         Judeo-Christion tradition:

         a)  *Nothing* existed before God created it.
         b)  *Everything* that God created was good.
         c)  Angels and humans were created with free-will.
         d)  Free-will is meaningless  if  there  is  *no*  possibility  of
             rejecting God.

         To suggest that Lucifer exists because there *has*  to  be  a  God
         Opposite implies that:

         a)  Lucifer *always* existed because God always existed.
         b)  Or, not everything God created was good  because  Lucifer  was
             not good.
         c)  Or, Lucifer was not created with free-will  because  Lucifer's
             nature is to be bad.
         d)  Or, free-will in Lucifer's case is meaningless because Lucifer
             never had the possibility of *accepting* God.

     Peace,

     Alvin
401.4SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEThu Feb 06 1992 18:5791
    Re: 3
    
    Salvation to me means, in it's basest conception, "saved from death and
    eternal damnation"...and anything or any man or any angel which can be
    condemned to death and/or eternal damnation by disobedience, has
    available to them, by the tender mercy of our common Father in heaven,
    the option to repent and be "SAVED" from death and eternal damnation. 
    
    So you consider only man can gain "Salvation", but I believe the
    scriptures clearly point out that the Angels which were disobedient
    (followers of Satan) are preached to.  Also that God has allowed Satan
    time to see for himself that he cannot achieve what he has in mind to
    do, which is to exalt his throne above God's.  Jesus said, "only those
    who came down from heaven can ascend up to heaven", and SURELY Satan
    was once in heaven...and if we don't believe MAN comes down into flesh
    from heaven, then it would seem that only Satan and Jesus and the
    fallen angels are the only ones who'll ever go back to heaven.
    
    I think you err when you say "Lucifer/Satan did not commit the Original
    Sin".  I think he was the ORIGINAL Original Sinner, and thus beguiled
    Eve to do the same....at least this is what the bible teaches.  Truly
    there was no injunction on Satan not to tempt people...in fact that was
    his mission, as God wants him to deceive all those he can.
    
>     for  Lucifer to change..."  A related question might be, "is free-will
>     removed from one who rejects God?"  In fact, this could be  the  heart
>     of the matter.
    
    Is free-will removed from one who rejects God?  It sounds as if you are
    asking does God "take away" our free will...if so, I think not.  When
    we submit to serve SIN, or even serve GOD/Righteousness, we surrender
    our "free will" on our own.  We can always, and at any time change our
    minds.  Free will is as natural to us as life itself...there are no
    robots or android beings created by God, which serve another being hand
    and foot, whose wish is there command, even animals get tired of
    mistreatment.
    
>     1.  As I understand it, Lucifer was created  an  angel  (in  fact,  an
>         archangel),  and  so  wasn't  born  a liar.  Becoming the ruler of
>         darkness, I believe, falls under the question,  "how  was  Lucifer
>         punished?"
    
    To say that Satan BECAME the rule of darkness, seems to imply he was
    something else prior to this assignment.  You say it falls under the
    question of "how was Lucifer punished?"...I say it falls under the
    question of when and why Lucifer was created.  
    
    People seem to forget that "In the beginning...DARKNESS covered the
    face of the deep", and then "God said let there be light".  During the
    period of time prior to the creation of light, THEN was Satan the most
    perfect angel, and the ruler of darkness.  But when LIGHT was created,
    and the children of light, through Christ, the Word of God, Satan
    position as the most perfect angel was ended.  You see the battles
    between Satan and Gabriel and Michael...it's pretty heavy, are you with
    me so far?
    
    Satan never had a "Beatific Vision".
    
>     3.  You present an untenable position concerning the nature  of  God's
>         creations  when  you  suggest that existence of God (all goodness)
>         presumes the existence of Another (all evil).   According  to  the
>         Judeo-Christion tradition:

>         a)  *Nothing* existed before God created it.
>         b)  *Everything* that God created was good.
>         c)  Angels and humans were created with free-will.
>         d)  Free-will is meaningless  if  there  is  *no*  possibility  of
>             rejecting God.
    
    When "darkness covered the face of the deep" the creation of Satan was
    good.  But when light came on the scene, and the children of light,
    Satan became an evil opposite of that new development.
    
    It's like the Garden of Eden.  The Garden was a "PERFECT" garden, as
    gardens go.  But when Man was introduced into the Garden, though the
    Garden was perfect, everything in the Garden wasn't perfect and good
    from Man...Man was perfect, the Garden was perfect, but Man in the
    Garden is not a perfect combination.  We learn from this the idea that
    we must learn who to relate to things external and diverse from self. 
    
    Alvin, you make several presumptions about my line of thought, but I
    don't think you've heard of what I'm saying.  Everything God created is
    Good, in and of itself self, but not necessarily in combination with
    one another.  The various combinations of separate things produces the
    multitude of diverse creations and essences in the universe, all are
    good, but some are bad for other things...for instance water will put
    out a fire...is the water a bad thing because it extinguishes the fire,
    what if you needed the fire you were camping and the rain put out the
    fire you were going to cook over?  It depends on the situation.
    
    Playtoe
401.5RE: .4 - observations and confusionsCHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACIFri Feb 07 1992 20:16153
     Thank you again, Playtoe, for your thoughtful and considered REPLY.


>    Salvation to me means, in it's basest conception, "saved from death and
>    eternal damnation"...and anything or any man or any angel which can be
>    condemned to death and/or eternal damnation by disobedience, has
>    available to them, by the tender mercy of our common Father in heaven,
>    the option to repent and be "SAVED" from death and eternal damnation. 
>    
>    So you consider only man can gain "Salvation", but I believe the
>    scriptures clearly point out that the Angels which were disobedient
>    (followers of Satan) are preached to.  ...............................

     Yes, your definition of Salvation is certainly  consistent  with  your
     belief.   I  started  reading  Ezekiel  33,  but I didn't have time to
     finish it yet.  Which verse/verses were you thinking of specifically?


>    .....................................  Also that God has allowed Satan
>    time to see for himself that he cannot achieve what he has in mind to
>    do, which is to exalt his throne above God's.  Jesus said, "only those
>    who came down from heaven can ascend up to heaven", and SURELY Satan
>    was once in heaven...and if we don't believe MAN comes down into flesh
>    from heaven, then it would seem that only Satan and Jesus and the
>    fallen angels are the only ones who'll ever go back to heaven.

     I like the aphorism about ascending to heaven,  but,  sorry,  I'm  not
     sure  I  understand  what you were trying to say here.  Would you mind
     rephrasing it?


>    I think you err when you say "Lucifer/Satan did not commit the Original
>    Sin".  I think he was the ORIGINAL Original Sinner, and thus beguiled
>    Eve to do the same....at least this is what the bible teaches.  .....

     We have  a  clear  difference  of  opinion  here.   Lucifer  certainly
     committed  some  kind  of  sin  that  resulted  in being expelled from
     heaven, but that sin was not the Original  Sin  that  Christians  base
     their  theology  on.  I don't think I'm in error here, but I'm willing
     to admit I'm wrong if you/someone wants to try and explain it to me in
     other words.


>    ..............................................................  Truly
>    there was no injunction on Satan not to tempt people...in fact that was
>    his mission, as God wants him to deceive all those he can.

     Well, I'm not sure God "wants" any entity to be a deceiver.   God  may
     allow  it,  but, as I understand Judeo-Christian teaching, the will of
     God seems to be that all things work together for  good.   And  as  it
     relates to my initial question, it would seem to me that those that do
     the mission that God has set out for them are  doing  good,  therefore
     Lucifer  is  doing  good  by tempting people.  But I'm sure that's not
     what you meant.  Please elaborate.


>    Is free-will removed from one who rejects God?  It sounds as if you are
>    asking does God "take away" our free will...if so, I think not.  When
>    we submit to serve SIN, or even serve GOD/Righteousness, we surrender
>    our "free will" on our own.  We can always, and at any time change our
>    minds.  Free will is as natural to us as life itself...there are no
>    robots or android beings created by God, which serve another being hand
>    and foot, whose wish is there command, even animals get tired of
>    mistreatment.

     Yes, I agree with this, at least in theory.  But do Christians believe
     "we  can  always,  and  at  any time change our minds"?  Or, to put it
     another way, does "any time" include after we die?   As  I  understand
     it,  Christians  believe that once you've finished your time on earth,
     all bets are off.  You either make it to heaven :^D, or... :^(


>    To say that Satan BECAME the rule of darkness, seems to imply he was
>    something else prior to this assignment.  You say it falls under the
>    question of "how was Lucifer punished?"...I say it falls under the
>    question of when and why Lucifer was created.  

     According  to  Judeo-Christian  tradition,  Lucifer  was  created   an
     archangel.   Now,  to tell you the truth, I don't know where one finds
     this story.  We should probably get a pointer to the source before  we
     continue.   But,  if  my  understanding  is  correct, then Lucifer was
     created for the same reason any other angel was created.


>    People seem to forget that "In the beginning...DARKNESS covered the
>    face of the deep", and then "God said let there be light".  During the
>    period of time prior to the creation of light, THEN was Satan the most
>    perfect angel, and the ruler of darkness.  But when LIGHT was created,
>    and the children of light, through Christ, the Word of God, Satan
>    position as the most perfect angel was ended.  You see the battles
>    between Satan and Gabriel and Michael...it's pretty heavy, are you with
>    me so far?
                                       .
                                       .
                                       .
>    When "darkness covered the face of the deep" the creation of Satan was
>    good.  But when light came on the scene, and the children of light,
>    Satan became an evil opposite of that new development.

     I don't think people forget "darkness covered the face of  the  deep",
     and  I also don't think most people interpret it this way.  Correct me
     if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying, "by virtue of the  fact
     that there was darkness, then there must have been Satan."  This would
     mean that Satan  always  existed,  which  certainly  runs  counter  to
     Judeo-Christian  teaching which says that God, the I Am Who Am, always
     existed  and  was  the  creator  of  everything  else   that   exists.
     "Darkness",  as  I understand it in this verse, simply means there was
     nothing.

     And, yes, you're right about the war  between  Gabriel,  Michael,  and
     Lucifer being heavy.


>    Satan never had a "Beatific Vision".

     Maybe, maybe not.  We'd have to find out whether or  not  the  Lucifer
     story takes place in heaven.  If it did, then Lucifer had the Beatific
     Vision.  If it didn't, then you may be correct *if* your definition of
     hell  is  not,  "the state of having seen the Beatific Vision and then
     losing it".


>    It's like the Garden of Eden.  The Garden was a "PERFECT" garden, as
>    gardens go.  But when Man was introduced into the Garden, though the
>    Garden was perfect, everything in the Garden wasn't perfect and good
>    from Man...Man was perfect, the Garden was perfect, but Man in the
>    Garden is not a perfect combination.  We learn from this the idea that
>    we must learn who to relate to things external and diverse from self. 
>
>    Alvin, you make several presumptions about my line of thought, but I
>    don't think you've heard of what I'm saying.  Everything God created is
>    Good, in and of itself self, but not necessarily in combination with
>    one another.  The various combinations of separate things produces the
>    multitude of diverse creations and essences in the universe, all are
>    good, but some are bad for other things...for instance water will put
>    out a fire...is the water a bad thing because it extinguishes the fire,
>    what if you needed the fire you were camping and the rain put out the
>    fire you were going to cook over?  It depends on the situation.

     Actually, I'm not "presuming" anything about  your  line  of  thought.
     I'm only trying to tell you how I interpret what you say, which is not
     the same thing at all.  The  only  thing  I  presume  is  that  you're
     sincere.

     And I think I understand most of what you said, although the above two
     paragraphs  do not make sense to me at all.  I summarize them to mean,
     "everything is good as long as it stands alone, but put the wrong  two
     things  together  and you've got bad".  So?  What does that have to do
     with Lucifer?

     Peace,

     Alvin
401.6Garden of EdenAKOCOA::FLANAGANwaiting for the snowMon Feb 10 1992 15:4927
    Of course this discussion takes on a whole new twist with a feminist
    version of the Garden of EDen.  This is a version from Riane Eisler's
    book The Chalice and the Blade.  It makes a lot of sense to me.
    
    In prehistoric Neolithic time the Great Mother Goddess was worshipped
    everywhere.  Excavations from all over the world are now showing
    evidence of this universal Goddess with many names.  The snake or
    serpent is a common symbol of the goddess.  The bull, or horned animal
    is later translated to "satan".  The bull represents the male consort
    to the Great Mother Goddess.
    
    When "God was a women", society was agrarian, egalitarian, and
    peaceful.  Violent, Hierarchally organized, Violent Tribes ultimately
    wiped out these Agrarian Tribes.  These Tribes proclaimed that their
    God sanctioned and ordered violence and anihilation against these
    tribes.  The Israelites and the Cananittes are but one example.
    
    The Garden of EDEN represent those peaceful Agrarian times.  Eve's sin
    is to continue to Worship the Great Goddess symbolized by the snake. 
    The Tree of Knowledge and The Tree of Life are common natural
    objectives found throughout the Goddess Religions.  Being thrown out of
    the Garden of Eden is the conquering of the Peaceful Agrarian Societies
    by the Violent Nomadic Warrior Tribes.  In order to overthrow the
    Goddess religion these tribes also needed to practice the brutality
    against women as is rationalized in the book of Genesis.
    
    I reject the myth of the Garden of Eden. 
401.7An observation and a questionCHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACITue Feb 11 1992 13:1735
>          <<< Note 401.6 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow" >>>
>                              -< Garden of Eden >-
>    Of course this discussion takes on a whole new twist with a feminist
>    version of the Garden of EDen.  This is a version from Riane Eisler's
>    book The Chalice and the Blade.  It makes a lot of sense to me.
                                        .
                                        .
                                        .
>    I reject the myth of the Garden of Eden. 

     Thanx for that little aside.

     I, of course, wasn't questioning the myth of the Garden of  Eden.   In
     fact, I accept that at the core of Christianity is the belief that the
     human condition is the result of some kind Original Sin and  that  the
     story  of  the  Garden  of Eden, even if it isn't literally true, is a
     parable used to explain  this  doctrine.   Personally,  I,  too,  have
     questions  concerning  this  concept,  but, with all due respect, that
     wasn't the subject of this topic.  I was more  interested  in  reading
     the  thoughts  of  those that actually accept this doctrine in that it
     has some connection with  the  Lucifer  story/myth,  since  belief  in
     {Lucifer,Satan,the  Devil} is also an essential Christian belief.  But
     thanx again.


     By the way, I've finally gotten around  to  reading  Ezekiel  33.   It
     seems  to  say  that if one has sinned but follows that sin with right
     actions, then the sin is forgotten.  That's just my  first  impression
     after  one  reading.   True, it doesn't say it only applies to humans,
     but, since it's certainly addressed to humans, why  do  you  think  it
     would apply to Lucifer as well?

     Peace,

     Alvin
401.8AKOCOA::FLANAGANwaiting for the snowTue Feb 11 1992 17:197
    Sorry about that little aside.
    
    But, is a belief in Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, an essential Christian
    belief?   Real or figurative?
    
    
    Pat
401.9CSC32::J_CHRISTIEPeace: the Final FrontierTue Feb 11 1992 22:0015
Note 401.8

>    But, is a belief in Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, an essential Christian
>    belief?   Real or figurative?

Pat,

	Some Christians might emphatically say that Satan is a real entity;
as real as you and me.  Personally, I do not.  I do believe that evil exists,
however.

	You might want to check out topics 56 and 304.

Peace,
Richard
401.10RE: .8 - sorry. I didn't mean to sound critical.CHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACIWed Feb 12 1992 14:3722
>          <<< Note 401.8 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow" >>>
>
>    Sorry about that little aside.

     No need to apologize, Pat.  I thought  it  was  interesting.   I  just
     meant  to  point out that it didn't directly address the question.  If
     they don't lead to rat-holes, I think asides add color to a discussion
     and I, for one, don't mind.


>    But, is a belief in Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, an essential Christian
>    belief?   Real or figurative?

     Real or figurative, I would say, "yes".  The Garden of Eden story/myth
     introduces the concept of Another Being.  Jesus spoke to Another Being
     directly before beginning his life's work.  Guess  a  Christian  might
     say, "If Jesus believed it, I should too!"  That's a pretty good test,
     I think, of an essential Christian belief.

     Peace,

     Alvin
401.11SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEWed Feb 12 1992 22:31125
    RE 5
    
    Peace, Alvin:
    
    Thank you for your carefully worded reply:
    
>     belief.   I  started  reading  Ezekiel  33,  but I didn't have time to
>     finish it yet.  Which verse/verses were you thinking of specifically?
    
    The verses which say "If I say to the wicked he shall surely die, and
    he repent of his ways, then he shall live.  If I say to the righteous
    he shall live, and he commit iniquity, then he shall die...you say MY
    ways are unequal, but it is YOUR ways that are unequal"...for God does
    not change, but is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
    
>     I like the aphorism about ascending to heaven,  but,  sorry,  I'm  not
>     sure  I  understand  what you were trying to say here.  Would you mind
>     rephrasing it?
    
    In other words, I believe in the eternal/immortal spirit of God in Man,
    that nothing lives that does not have God in them...God creates no
    life form in which he does not put his "spirit of life" in.  So Man
    comes from God and thus from above, or heaven.  Satan fell from heaven. 
    Jesus came from heaven to save all those that fell from the heavenly
    places...and this earth is also heaven, as it is written in Genesis 1:9
    "and he called the firmament HEAVEN".  The "FALL" of Man and of Satan
    was of NATURE, Satan was changed/fell from a Bright Spirit to a Dark 
    Spirit, same with Man...in other words, from obedience to disobedience.
    
>     We have  a  clear  difference  of  opinion  here.   Lucifer  certainly
>     committed  some  kind  of  sin  that  resulted  in being expelled from
>     heaven, but that sin was not the Original  Sin  that  Christians  base
>     their  theology  on.  I don't think I'm in error here, but I'm willing
>     to admit I'm wrong if you/someone wants to try and explain it to me in
>     other words.
    
    Satan desired exalt his throne above God's, in that desire he commited
    the Original Sin, which "disobedience" to the Will of God.  Man, the
    same thing...as it is written in Thessalonians, "Until that man of sin
    be revealed the son of perdition, who exalteth himself above all that
    is called God".  This is intrinsic to the "Knowledge of Good and Evil",
    
    I believe you need to explain for me your conception of the "Original
    Sin"...that is not a bible concept, but a man's concept...what is this
    "Original Sin" thing?  You present it rather "finitely" or objectively
    as if it's some concrete idea, single thing...what?
    
>     Well, I'm not sure God "wants" any entity to be a deceiver.   God  may
>     allow  it,  but, as I understand Judeo-Christian teaching, the will of
>     God seems to be that all things work together for  good.   And  as  it
>     relates to my initial question, it would seem to me that those that do
>     the mission that God has set out for them are  doing  good,  therefore
>     Lucifer  is  doing  good  by tempting people.  But I'm sure that's not
>     what you meant.  Please elaborate.
    
    "Wanting", and "allowing to exist for a time, til the fullness, or
    completion of sin/act of disobedience is accomplished" is two different
    things.  Surely God does "want" deceivers in the world, and surely the
    wicked are constantly being destroyed.  But the fact is God allows them
    to exist for a time, often to serve as an example, also to test or try
    the faith of the righteous (as in the case of Job)...surely if there
    were no deceivers in the world no one could be used to challenge the
    faith of the righteous...as it is written, "I create good and evil...",
    "I made the wicked for the wicked day".
    
    It is not to say that the wicked are doing good in their wickedness,
    that Satan is doing good in tempting, because if that were so they'd go
    to heaven for their acts...but they won't see heaven acting that way. 
    On the other hand, those who overcome them will see heaven...and the
    following you have misquoted:
    
>     God seems to be that all things work together for  good.   And  as  it
    
    The scriptures say, "All things work together for good TO THOSE WHO
    LOVE THE LORD".
    
>     Yes, I agree with this, at least in theory.  But do Christians believe
>     "we  can  always,  and  at  any time change our minds"?  Or, to put it
>     another way, does "any time" include after we die?   As  I  understand
>     it,  Christians  believe that once you've finished your time on earth,
>     all bets are off.  You either make it to heaven :^D, or... :^(

    And Christians are right...after death in this life is the Judgement. 
    So you either get together now, in THIS life or not.  Surely after you
    die you have essentially moved out of TIME as we know it...as time is a
    human convention..."A day to man is as a 1000 years to the Lord," so
    you see a different concept of time is in effect once you leave this
    plane of existence.
    
>     According  to  Judeo-Christian  tradition,  Lucifer  was  created   an
>     archangel.   Now,  to tell you the truth, I don't know where one finds
    
    Ok, true, Satan is an ARCHANGEL.  But what was his commission.  Every
    created angel (Arch or whatever) has a "mission" or a purpose, right? 
    What was Satan created for?  Or what was Satan created to "Keep the way
    of"?  If you can't find the story, I'll offer this...he was created
    the Ruler of Darkness.  His Brightest of Spirit, however, was dim
    compared to the Children of Light's Bright Spirit.  That's possible the
    reason God ordered all the Angels in Satan's charge to submit to Adam,
    because Adam was worthy of that due to the nature of his Bright Spirit. 
    But those Angels, and Satan, who refused to submit, to Adam, rebelled
    and were "disobedient"...and due their disobedience lost their
    "Original State", perhaps that has to do with why it's called the
    Original Sin?  Because on the same token Adamic Man disobeyed God,
    regardless of how that occurred, and as a result fell from his Original
    State...and so on, for all those who are disobedient, they are
    constantly loosing their Original States...
    
>     if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're saying, "by virtue of the  fact
>     that there was darkness, then there must have been Satan."  This would
    
    Hummmm...I think I sense somewhat a degree of unbelief in the existence
    of Satan...but nevertheless.   Why do you say "must have been"? 
    Anyway?  Satan RULES or PRESIDES over things in the DARKNESS, by virtue
    of his commission by God.  Satan represents CHAOS, and CONFUSION and
    FORMLESSLY and the VOID.  If you find yourself in any of these four
    conditions, KNOW that Satan/Lucifer has you in his power, and you can
    easily be deceived, or held in bondage...I'm talking allegorically, as
    I've always said the Bible is written in this form...I'm speaking of
    principles and forces and operations and order of process, cause and
    effect, law of opposition, trinity, The Laws of the Transformations. 
    Don't take this Satan/Lucifer thing so literally, even as I ask not to
    take ADAM and EVE so literally as represent one man and one woman.
    
    Playtoe
401.12SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEWed Feb 12 1992 22:4120
    re: 6
    
    That "Great Mother Goddess" was none other than ISIS, and she was twin
    and husband to Osiris, both a manifestation of the God PTAH...according
    to the Memphite Theology of ancient Egypt.  The Great Mother Goddess,
    also represents "Mother Earth" or the Flesh.  
    
    Also, so you reject the Garden of Eden for this Great Mother Goddess
    conception...would you also care to return to the times of FLESH and
    LUST and the primal urges of humankind?  
    
    You must understand that the FLESH is codifically considered FEMININE
    and the inner self or the SPIRIT/MIND is considered the MALE aspect of
    being.  God is called in the Masculine not because he is strictly a
    male, because God is androgynous, both male and female, but God is
    referred to as a MALE because God is a SPIRIT.  If you viewed it this
    way this would also elliminate your feministically oriented offensive
    posturing regarding the Word of God.
    
    Playtoe
401.13SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEWed Feb 12 1992 22:5416
    Re: Alvin
    
    I see you've read Ezekiel 33 and ask how do we extend it to Satan, yet
    you also seem to question the existence of Satan...I say this however,
    IF Satan exists (and as I conceive of the reality of that which we call
    Satan, he/she/it exists) and was created by God, if Satan can be
    disobedient, then surely Satan can become repentant, or change ways
    back to obedience...and subsequently be saved from being tossed into
    the LAKE OF FIRE...surely if SATAN changed God wouldn't be so
    unmerciful and unforgiving as to still throw him into the FIRE.  That's
    simply impossible for God to do, for it is impossible for God to lie. 
    And if Ezekiel 33 doesn't apply to Satan as will, then God changed on
    Satan's behalf and for Satan Ezekiel 33 is lie...I doubt if God would
    allow Satan to get one up on him!
    
    Playtoe
401.14RE: .13 - I understand. Does anybody second?CHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACIThu Feb 13 1992 13:5343
     Sorry, Playtoe, but I only have time to respond to the  shorter  REPLY
     now.  I'll get back to you on the other ASAP.  And, thanx, again.


               <<< Note 401.13 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>

>    I see you've read Ezekiel 33 and ask how do we extend it to Satan, yet
>    you also seem to question the existence of Satan......................

     Well,  actually  my  purpose  wasn't  to  question  the  existence  or
     non-existence  of  anything.   I'm  an agnostic and a skeptic, but I'm
     taking the position here of one who is  trying  to  understand  -  not
     challenge.   In  fact,  my  hope  is  that  if  others  find that this
     discussion helps them have  an  even  better  understanding  of  their
     faith,  great!   In  light  of  this I hope you can see how your "yet"
     doesn't have anything to do with my question(s).  Pretend, if it  will
     help, that I'm a neophyte Christian.


>    ...................................................I say this however,
>    IF Satan exists (and as I conceive of the reality of that which we call
>    Satan, he/she/it exists) and was created by God, if Satan can be
>    disobedient, then surely Satan can become repentant, or change ways
>    back to obedience...and subsequently be saved from being tossed into
>    the LAKE OF FIRE...surely if SATAN changed God wouldn't be so
>    unmerciful and unforgiving as to still throw him into the FIRE.  That's
>    simply impossible for God to do, for it is impossible for God to lie. 
>    And if Ezekiel 33 doesn't apply to Satan as will, then God changed on
>    Satan's behalf and for Satan Ezekiel 33 is lie...I doubt if God would
>    allow Satan to get one up on him!

     Yes, yes, yes!  Finally!  This answers my original question!  What too
     you so long?  Thanx.


     Okay, so now I have one Christian's perspective.  Is Playtoe the  only
     Christian   in  the  CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE  conference?   Is  his  the
     "definitive" answer?  Do some denominations think otherwise?  Or could
     it be I have a stupid question?

     Peace,

     Alvin
401.15If he would he could.SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEThu Feb 13 1992 19:4710
    Re: 14
    
    I, last evening, raised the question to a Catholic Bishop I met
    recently, and he supported my idea...he said "God is not so unmerciful,
    salvation is open to all (universal, world without end).  The question
    is WILL Satan repent.  Some people are just born to be wicked."  And
    after he said that I said, "Yes, God said, "I made the wicked for the
    wicked day", and he said "Yes, that's what he said"...so.
    
    Playtoe
401.16RE: .12 - come again?CHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACIFri Feb 14 1992 14:3341
     Sorry, Playtoe, I had a hard time replying to this.  And  I  hope  you
     won't take offense cause this just might be the result of a hard week.


               <<< Note 401.12 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>

>    That "Great Mother Goddess" was none other than ISIS, and she was twin
>    and husband to Osiris, both a manifestation of the God PTAH...according
>    to the Memphite Theology of ancient Egypt.  The Great Mother Goddess,
>    also represents "Mother Earth" or the Flesh.  

     What this has to do with my question is beyond me.


>    Also, so you reject the Garden of Eden for this Great Mother Goddess
>    conception...would you also care to return to the times of FLESH and
>    LUST and the primal urges of humankind?  

     As I've noted elsewhere,  my  beliefs  have  nothing  to  do  with  my
     intention  in asking the question.  And, again, what does this have to
     do with my question?


>    You must understand that the FLESH is codifically considered FEMININE
>    and the inner self or the SPIRIT/MIND is considered the MALE aspect of
>    being.  God is called in the Masculine not because he is strictly a
>    male, because God is androgynous, both male and female, but God is
>    referred to as a MALE because God is a SPIRIT.  If you viewed it this
>    way this would also elliminate your feministically oriented offensive
>    posturing regarding the Word of God.

     Could it be that you meant this REPLY for  another  topic?   Not  only
     does   this  *not*  address  the  original  question,  but  it  states
     philosophical meanderings as  if  they  were  fact,  and  it  draws  a
     conclusion  about  my views that, IMHO, is unwarranted.  If this whole
     thing wasn't entered here by mistake  then  I  find  it  disappointing
     because it doesn't show you at your best.  :^(

     Peace,

     Alvin
401.17SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEFri Feb 14 1992 21:156
    RE 16
    
    (SMILE)  No offense taken.  The note you've responded to (.12) was
    addressed to reply (.6) by Flanagan...
    
    Playtoe
401.18RE: .16 - oops!CHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACIFri Feb 14 1992 22:1710
               <<< Note 401.17 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST "PLAYTOE" >>>

>    ..........................  The note you've responded to (.12) was
>    addressed to reply (.6) by Flanagan...

     Oh, yes!  Now it makes sense.  Double apologies from me.  :^(

     Peace,

     Alvin
401.19anti dualismAKOCOA::FLANAGANwaiting for the snowMon Feb 17 1992 13:196
    RE: .12
    
    I do reject the dualism between God/Goddess  Spirit/Body  Male/Female
    Good/Evil  Heaven/Earth.
    
    Oat
401.20SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEMon Feb 17 1992 16:2216
    Re: 19
    
    Why do you reject dualism?  I have OVERCOME dualism....but to reject it
    puts one in a VERY precarious light, very precarious.  I mean men and
    women, male and female, is the only reality, what else is there?  
    
    I understand why some others reject Dualism, because it is the
    knowledge of "oppositions/opposing forces", and who wants to "study
    war".  However, the Laws of Oppositions is a fundamental principle of
    life.  The Trinity springs from Dualism...from the Father and Mother
    comes the Son/Daughter.  Did you know that in the early beginnings of
    mankind, it was normal to have a male and female set of twins?  "Male
    and female created he them." could refer to androgeny or to twins.
    
    Playtoe
    
401.21here and nowAKOCOA::FLANAGANwaiting for the snowMon Feb 17 1992 17:0010
    I reject dualism because the here and the now is what is important. 
    Christian dualism suggests that the male, the herafter, the spirit is
    all that matters.  Mother Earth, the body, sex, the female are also
    important.  How we live our lives right now is what truly counts.  Even
    Paul(in spite of his chauvinism) picked the best choice out of the faith,
    hope, and love triad.  Let the Reign of the Divine begin right here,
    right now. Let's not wait until some mythical time at the end of
    history.
    
    Pat
401.22Now is the only time there isATSE::FLAHERTYThat's enough for me...Mon Feb 17 1992 17:186
    Hi Pat,
    
    Enjoying your inputs...good stuff.
    
    Ro
    
401.23Hummmm....SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEMon Feb 17 1992 18:3916
    Re: 21
    
    I can relate to what you are saying, how you reject it based upon how
    the misguided have misrepresented it in the past.  But in the "here and
    now", do you reject the idea of existant dualism in the universe?  I
    reject "Dualism" in the way you do as well, when I come to think about
    it!  But I understand that that version of the meaning and reality of
    Dualism is not the full story and reality of it in the universe. 
    
    So, I'm wondering...if you believe as you do, how do you feel about
    what we are talking about regarding Judas, certain Gnostic's belief in
    Utility of Evil, and the necessity of evil....since Mother Earth, the
    Body, sex, the female are also important, is EVIL as well important to
    life?
    
    Playtoe
401.24bum wrapAKOCOA::FLANAGANwaiting for the snowMon Feb 17 1992 18:5021
    I think Judas got a bum wrap.
    
    
    
    Its the same problem as the hardening of the heart of the Egyptians. 
    If Judas was predestined to betray Jesus, then he had no free will then
    he should not be judged guilty.  I believe in an all loving merciful
    Divinity.  Not one that sets someone up and then punishes them.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
401.25Wow, this it wonderful!SWAM1::DOTHARD_STPLAYTOEMon Feb 17 1992 21:4624
    Re: 24
    
    I too must give some consideration to this Gnostic idea.  If Jesus
    "chose" Judas afterwards he was locked in to fulfill that which he was
    called to do...and what did Judas do afterwards, didn't he commit
    suicide or something?  I mean GOSH, it's not like Judas actually
    crucified the MAN, he merely pointed him out!  Is that enough to send
    this disciple to hell....Did Judas actually SIN?  What was Judas' sin? 
    Name the Commandment he broke?  
    
    Yes, I think Judas should get a "retrial"...isn't this exciting?  Why
    don't we hold a trial right here?  Elect a jury, get some defense
    attorney's and some prosecutor's from those who believe he's guilty of
    SIN...I don't know but I think I could win a case and get Judas off
    light!
    
    Man, this is really inspiring...here I was trying to make good of this
    socalled evil thing, only to find out it was ME all along imposing the
    evil on this good thing...Like Peter on socalled "unclean" meats!
    
    I felt a cloud/mist remove from the left side of my brain!  I'm
    serious!
    
    Playtoe
401.26A PointerCHGV04::ORZECHAlvin Orzechowski @ACITue Feb 18 1992 12:4517
     Well, I was speaking to a friend a mine who  said  I  could  find  the
     story/myth  of Lucifer in Revelations.  He mumbled something about how
     some think dualism isn't really part  of  Judeo  thinking/teaching  so
     this  was  "supplied"  as  an  "answer"  to those that thought dualism
     should have a place in Christian thinking/teaching.  So, interestingly
     enough,  Playtoe, et al., may still be addressing my original question
     even though they seem to be exploring a fur-lined rat-hole.

     By the way, I haven't gotten around to locating the chapter and verse.
     If  anyone  cares  to  supply them before I get back here, please feel
     free.

     Happy noting.

     Think "Peace",

     Alvin